How had I gotten through an entire teacher prep program and 10 years in the field and never read this before?
I always viewed my teaching through the lens, "How can I make this a puzzle? How can I make this fun?" For the first time, I am questioning the very foundation of our math educational system--"the standards." Nothing in them asks students to see the beauty in math. Not one says, "students will find math enjoyable or fun." Every math teacher needs to read this.
Thank you for the thoughtful reading list. I recently enjoyed a review from our sister field, psychology: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/21/magazine/climate-anxiety-therapy.html It reminded me of your exasperation, "It’s neat like a kid showing up to a raging house fire in a firefighter’s suit telling the crew “I got this!”" The psychologists are forming alliances of people aware of the dog's surroundings in ThisIsFine.gif We gotta, as well.
NCTM 2023 -- Would like to ask you a few Q's at this week's conference, but can't find the (titles, days, times) that you list as, I will be here ... Please post an update to the presentations that you plan to attend. I will be taking in the data science topics for older students, 10-12? Here is a Q: where are the major publishers, like Pearson Education? Why does TI have such a minor presence?
How Are Boise Schools Adapting to Increased AI Use? Idaho Statesman
at what point should we expect “AI could aid” to turn into “AI is aiding” and “students could use” into “students are using”?
https://mathspace.co/ has released an AiChatBot/Tutor that works with ChatGPT4 to help students work through problems, it doesn't give them the answer and is fairly focused. I was impressed. Still removes the social aspect of learning but maybe students can be programmed out of that and turned into nice like robots.
"At what point should we expect all of the potential energy we are told that generative AI represents for students and teachers to turn into kinetic energy, into transformation for their work?"
I would add, when did we stop trying to reduce the natural causes of friction on potential energy before trying to transform systems into kinetic energy? Administrators and Teachers hear from the near-speculative articles, see wonderful innovative approaches (performed by experts in laboratories) and then jump to conclusions that these approaches must be transformative to the entire educational system without considering differing variables. There are so many factors that need to be taken into consideration, including one of the most important: 'teacher burn-out' caused by the natural friction of near-speculative approaches.
"Some scientists noticed something, however. When you put a drill into a piece of wood, the wood slows down the motion (i.e. the rotational kinetic energy) of the drill bit. If you touch the drill bit afterwards, though, you will notice something: The drill bit is hot. (In fact, don't actually do this with a modern drill. You will burn yourself.) This gave some of our 19th century scientists the idea that perhaps this motion energy was being turned into some sort of "heat" energy."
Where does the heat energy caused by natural friction go when converting 'potential energy' into 'kinetic energy'? I have seen less "potential" innovative ideas create more amazing "kinetic" transformative educational experiences because there was less real-world friction, which in turn caused less teacher overheating and burn-out.
Is it time to consider and measure and level of friction "potential innovative ideas" have on the situations before trying to implement "kinetic transformation" of educational systems? Can we own that heat energy (cost, usage, training, support, etc.) are all things to consider and take the time to work these out rather than pushing innovation to production before the system can maintain it.
Recently had this shared with me:
http://worrydream.com/refs/Lockhart-MathematiciansLament.pdf
How had I gotten through an entire teacher prep program and 10 years in the field and never read this before?
I always viewed my teaching through the lens, "How can I make this a puzzle? How can I make this fun?" For the first time, I am questioning the very foundation of our math educational system--"the standards." Nothing in them asks students to see the beauty in math. Not one says, "students will find math enjoyable or fun." Every math teacher needs to read this.
Thank you for the thoughtful reading list. I recently enjoyed a review from our sister field, psychology: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/21/magazine/climate-anxiety-therapy.html It reminded me of your exasperation, "It’s neat like a kid showing up to a raging house fire in a firefighter’s suit telling the crew “I got this!”" The psychologists are forming alliances of people aware of the dog's surroundings in ThisIsFine.gif We gotta, as well.
NCTM 2023 -- Would like to ask you a few Q's at this week's conference, but can't find the (titles, days, times) that you list as, I will be here ... Please post an update to the presentations that you plan to attend. I will be taking in the data science topics for older students, 10-12? Here is a Q: where are the major publishers, like Pearson Education? Why does TI have such a minor presence?
Generative AI
How Are Boise Schools Adapting to Increased AI Use? Idaho Statesman
at what point should we expect “AI could aid” to turn into “AI is aiding” and “students could use” into “students are using”?
https://mathspace.co/ has released an AiChatBot/Tutor that works with ChatGPT4 to help students work through problems, it doesn't give them the answer and is fairly focused. I was impressed. Still removes the social aspect of learning but maybe students can be programmed out of that and turned into nice like robots.
"At what point should we expect all of the potential energy we are told that generative AI represents for students and teachers to turn into kinetic energy, into transformation for their work?"
I would add, when did we stop trying to reduce the natural causes of friction on potential energy before trying to transform systems into kinetic energy? Administrators and Teachers hear from the near-speculative articles, see wonderful innovative approaches (performed by experts in laboratories) and then jump to conclusions that these approaches must be transformative to the entire educational system without considering differing variables. There are so many factors that need to be taken into consideration, including one of the most important: 'teacher burn-out' caused by the natural friction of near-speculative approaches.
"Some scientists noticed something, however. When you put a drill into a piece of wood, the wood slows down the motion (i.e. the rotational kinetic energy) of the drill bit. If you touch the drill bit afterwards, though, you will notice something: The drill bit is hot. (In fact, don't actually do this with a modern drill. You will burn yourself.) This gave some of our 19th century scientists the idea that perhaps this motion energy was being turned into some sort of "heat" energy."
(https://phys.libretexts.org/Courses/Gettysburg_College/Gettysburg_College_Physics_for_Physics_Majors/12%3A_C12)_Thermal_Energy/12.01%3A_Lost_Energy_and_the_Discovery_of_Conservation_of_Energy)
Where does the heat energy caused by natural friction go when converting 'potential energy' into 'kinetic energy'? I have seen less "potential" innovative ideas create more amazing "kinetic" transformative educational experiences because there was less real-world friction, which in turn caused less teacher overheating and burn-out.
Is it time to consider and measure and level of friction "potential innovative ideas" have on the situations before trying to implement "kinetic transformation" of educational systems? Can we own that heat energy (cost, usage, training, support, etc.) are all things to consider and take the time to work these out rather than pushing innovation to production before the system can maintain it.